need u/v help
- Thread starter cottam411
- Start date
E
emeralcrab
Guest
I have the turbo twist on my 55g, haven't had any problems with ich or green water, but then who knows. I'm not about to put a new fish in until I QT them. I know a lot of people swear by them. I have it in line after the canister filter.
farslayer
Active Member
I disagree, they can aide in the prevention of diseases caused by pathogens in the water column. If the water is sterilized then up to 99.9% of the pathogens are damaged to the point where they can not cause infection nor can they reproduce. It is true that if a fish already has a disease that the sterlizer will not help it, but it will help to minimize the spread of the disease through the water column. This is why hospitals install UV sterilization systems to clean the air. It doesn't help sick patients, but it helps prevent new ones.
acrylic51
Active Member
Wasn't saying that UV's don't help with diseases, but it's not a sure fire way to do things.....UV's aren't 100% or even 99.95% as you stated, because if that was the case all the LFS would use them and ick and such wouldn't be a problem, so the figures presented are wrong........
The major problem with UV sterilizers are that most people don't know how to properly use them and they aren't maintenanced like they should......If you look at the manufacturers recommendations as far as water flow how many people out there can say they know their flow rates??? Not many if any, because they don't have any means of gauging or seeing what their flow rate is other than what the pump manufacturer states the pump pushes, and alot of things can affect the flow rate as well....Without flow meters and the flow being properly regulated the UV's are run incorrectly therefore making them even less effective than what they are....
Again do the homework manufacturers can say the effectiveness is whatever, but if you searches and ask lots of info, you'll see that there is not any major significant effectiveness against diseases like the numbers posted.......Go to reefcentral and ask the same question and you'll see cold hard facts.
The major problem with UV sterilizers are that most people don't know how to properly use them and they aren't maintenanced like they should......If you look at the manufacturers recommendations as far as water flow how many people out there can say they know their flow rates??? Not many if any, because they don't have any means of gauging or seeing what their flow rate is other than what the pump manufacturer states the pump pushes, and alot of things can affect the flow rate as well....Without flow meters and the flow being properly regulated the UV's are run incorrectly therefore making them even less effective than what they are....
Again do the homework manufacturers can say the effectiveness is whatever, but if you searches and ask lots of info, you'll see that there is not any major significant effectiveness against diseases like the numbers posted.......Go to reefcentral and ask the same question and you'll see cold hard facts.
acrylic51
Active Member
Originally Posted by Farslayer
I disagree, they can aide in the prevention of diseases caused by pathogens in the water column. If the water is sterilized then up to 99.9% of the pathogens are damaged to the point where they can not cause infection nor can they reproduce. It is true that if a fish already has a disease that the sterlizer will not help it, but it will help to minimize the spread of the disease through the water column. This is why hospitals install UV sterilization systems to clean the air. It doesn't help sick patients, but it helps prevent new ones.
I've even experimented on a small tank with regulated flow with a flow meter and know sick animals and doesn't work any better than good old quarantine, hypo or copper.
I disagree, they can aide in the prevention of diseases caused by pathogens in the water column. If the water is sterilized then up to 99.9% of the pathogens are damaged to the point where they can not cause infection nor can they reproduce. It is true that if a fish already has a disease that the sterlizer will not help it, but it will help to minimize the spread of the disease through the water column. This is why hospitals install UV sterilization systems to clean the air. It doesn't help sick patients, but it helps prevent new ones.
I've even experimented on a small tank with regulated flow with a flow meter and know sick animals and doesn't work any better than good old quarantine, hypo or copper.
farslayer
Active Member
No, your logic is not right. UV sterilizers are 99.9% effective at effectively killing what goes through them; this does not translate into 99.9% effective at ridding a tank of pathogens. The issue with not hooking the equipment up correctly has nothing to do with effectiveness of the sterilizer but the ability of the user to use it correctly. This can certainly have a bearing, but UV itself is not in question. And just because all LFS don't use them does not mean the numbers are wrong, it means they do not use them. You can not correlate these, it is only an assumption. A piece of equipment could be 100% effective and not be used for any number of reasons which have nothing to do with the effectiveness. BTW, my LFS DOES use a 36W UV sterilizer and diatom filters on his tanks.
Your experiment is also not valid because you don't actually have a control group. I've said that a sick fish will not be helped because the disease is on them, not in the water column. The experiement should have two tanks, one with a UV and one without. In both tanks, place sick fish and healthy fish and compare the rates of infection to the healthy fish for each tank. UVs do not cure fish, they help prevent the spread of the infection by sterilizing the water column.
Your experiment is also not valid because you don't actually have a control group. I've said that a sick fish will not be helped because the disease is on them, not in the water column. The experiement should have two tanks, one with a UV and one without. In both tanks, place sick fish and healthy fish and compare the rates of infection to the healthy fish for each tank. UVs do not cure fish, they help prevent the spread of the infection by sterilizing the water column.
acrylic51
Active Member
Logic has nothing to do with it and they aren't 99.9% effective at killing pathogens, because most people can't and don't run them at optimal running ability.
Again UV's are a usefull tool, but the effectiveness is greatly overrated, and they don't kill 99.9% of anything.......
Bottom line if they were as good as what you state and others as well, why aren't all the very nice super tanks running them....Again they've done a heck of alot more homework on the issue and it's because they aren't as effective as what your stating..........
Again UV's are a usefull tool, but the effectiveness is greatly overrated, and they don't kill 99.9% of anything.......
farslayer
Active Member
Again, your logic is wrong. Not connecting a UV sterilizer correctly and not achieving maximum use has nothing to do with the device itself, only the implementation thereof. UV light doesn't kill anything as I've said, it only alters its DNA detrimentally. If you say that UV light does not affect 99.9% of the pathogens which pass through it, post a reliable source. You've not polled the people owning these "super high" tanks, so you don't know if they are or aren't running sterilizers or why they are not running them if that is the case, you only know the people with whom you speak which may or may not be indicative of either the whole of reefkeepers or the validity of the device, it only shows the use and perceptions of the reefkeepers which may or may not be accurate.
Also, the actual experts in the field disagree with you as well. Since they build and test these devices, they likely outrank people who can not test them.
These are actual research articles:
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/4/975
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...osti_id=876370
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/239
These are just product descriptions, but the research in the field of UV light support their numbers.
http://www.cetsolar.com/uvwaterm.htm
http://www.triangularwave.com/f3.htm
Also, the actual experts in the field disagree with you as well. Since they build and test these devices, they likely outrank people who can not test them.
These are actual research articles:
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/4/975
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...osti_id=876370
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/239
These are just product descriptions, but the research in the field of UV light support their numbers.
http://www.cetsolar.com/uvwaterm.htm
http://www.triangularwave.com/f3.htm
acrylic51
Active Member
Again don't think your logic of saying they are 99.9% effective is just insane.....There is nothing that offers that type of protection against anything.......If they were that effective they would be recommended as a must buy piece of equipment, but they aren't.....I honestly don't care what the FDA or whoever says, they do alter chromosomes or whatever, but they won't eliminate or erradicate diseases....They may slow them down or hinder them, but not erradicate them.......and using figures saying 99.9% again is just wrong, because they aren't 99.9% efficient and erradicating disease.
chilwil84
Active Member
they may kill 99.9% of what passes through them the other problem other than flow rate is the % of your tanks water that flows through it so they may well help but total eradication probably not and if your water is not optimal and fish's imune system is not good all it takes is one to spread in a fish's place of sleep to have a chance of killing a fish
scsinet
Active Member
Acrylic is exactly right, no matter how insulting or rude others may be about it. Personal remarks like have been made by some here are not welcomed by anyone on this board.
The effectiveness of a germicidal UV lamp in ANY application is dependant on the length of exposure to the light, and the proximity to it. What he's saying is that people usually run water through them way too quickly, causing the organisms on death row to be rushed by the bulb too quickly, and hence not sustaining any or enough damage to be effective.
To assume that the water leaving a sterlizer is 99.9% free of unwanted organsims is incorrect in any regard. Even when the sterlizer is being run at the correct flow rate, some stuff is always going to get by.
Furthermore, even IF all this 99.9% stuff is true and we're all wrong about it, it doesn't change the fact that many unwanted organisms live in the substrate of the tank and spend very little time free swimming (such as Crypt/Ich), in which case even a perfectly functioning UV unit only has a short window during the tomite stage of the parasite to be effective.
They are not perfect. They help, but do not solve. They are hailed as a cure all, a way to sidestep proper maintenance and discipline in the hobby, and this is where their misapplication and the related misconceptions surrounding them cause them a bad reputation.
The effectiveness of a germicidal UV lamp in ANY application is dependant on the length of exposure to the light, and the proximity to it. What he's saying is that people usually run water through them way too quickly, causing the organisms on death row to be rushed by the bulb too quickly, and hence not sustaining any or enough damage to be effective.
To assume that the water leaving a sterlizer is 99.9% free of unwanted organsims is incorrect in any regard. Even when the sterlizer is being run at the correct flow rate, some stuff is always going to get by.
Furthermore, even IF all this 99.9% stuff is true and we're all wrong about it, it doesn't change the fact that many unwanted organisms live in the substrate of the tank and spend very little time free swimming (such as Crypt/Ich), in which case even a perfectly functioning UV unit only has a short window during the tomite stage of the parasite to be effective.
They are not perfect. They help, but do not solve. They are hailed as a cure all, a way to sidestep proper maintenance and discipline in the hobby, and this is where their misapplication and the related misconceptions surrounding them cause them a bad reputation.
acrylic51
Active Member
Originally Posted by Farslayer
The fact that you ignore the research tell me all I need to know. Your opinion is nothing compared to the research, sorry. Earn a PhD, the same as I, and then do your own research. I'm ending this thread.
Your PHD doesn't mean squat and don't care how much research you think you've done, and if that's the case I guess you know alittle more then Fenner per say??? Doubt it......No personal attack here and not bothered by your comment on your educational level, but it's just insane as mentioned earlier by SCSInet that it's ridiculous to think its 99.9% unwanted organism free when leaving the UV.......it doesn't kill everything and at periods and times of these organism life cycles they aren't free floating, and that's the only thing a UV is good for is when they are free floating.....Yes they do add a little to water clarity, but so does ozone as well.........
All I'm saying is giving out information that all water leaving a UV is 99.9% free of unwanted is totally far fetched....SCSInet sums it up really well......Thanks!!!!!
The fact that you ignore the research tell me all I need to know. Your opinion is nothing compared to the research, sorry. Earn a PhD, the same as I, and then do your own research. I'm ending this thread.
Your PHD doesn't mean squat and don't care how much research you think you've done, and if that's the case I guess you know alittle more then Fenner per say??? Doubt it......No personal attack here and not bothered by your comment on your educational level, but it's just insane as mentioned earlier by SCSInet that it's ridiculous to think its 99.9% unwanted organism free when leaving the UV.......it doesn't kill everything and at periods and times of these organism life cycles they aren't free floating, and that's the only thing a UV is good for is when they are free floating.....Yes they do add a little to water clarity, but so does ozone as well.........
All I'm saying is giving out information that all water leaving a UV is 99.9% free of unwanted is totally far fetched....SCSInet sums it up really well......Thanks!!!!!